Cowin Equipment Company, Inc. Etc. v. General Motors Corporation, Etc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the doctrine of unconscionability is not available to obtain affirmative relief, but only as a defense
• holding identical provisions under Alabama and Ohio UCC statutes are defensive in nature, and rejecting the argument that damages can be awarded based on unconscionability
• “The language of § 2–302 and the Official Comment which follows it make no mention of damages as an available remedy for an unconscionable contract.”
• “[T]he equitable theory of unconscionability has never been utilized to allow for the affirmative recovery of money damages.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).